Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: The debate over the legality of requiring same-sex marriage has only just begun

Comments

Return To Article
  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    May 25, 2014 1:50 p.m.

    The issue of legalizing marriage equality is not so much about whether the decision is left to the courts or the people, but rather how expeditiously marriage equality will become the law of the land. It is going to happen . . . that is a moot point. So for those who oppose the idea of marriage equality, get ready for a big disappointment.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 17, 2014 7:00 p.m.

    I was only 8 when Stonewall happened in 1968, and I really didn't come out until a decade ago. But I have been a reader all my life, and have read and heard the stories about what people went through back then and now. I am very aware of the history and the sacrifice and the pain of those who lead the fight out of the closet.

    As always happens, the new generation has little connection with that history, and those who are not gay and have no real connection to gay culture are also unaware. So Pride, which started as an effort to demand recognition and claim identity, is mostly a party. And people overall are so accustomed to their gay family, friends, coworkers and neighbors that the response has become "ho-hum."

    A good thing. Sad the awareness of the battles is fading, but a good thing that the battles are mostly over.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    May 17, 2014 2:54 p.m.

    @Meckofahess

    As soon as a church stops worship to take up a collection it becomes a business. As soon as there is a "revelation" that god "commands" a certain amount be given, it becomes a racket.

    When the income drops there are two choices. Ratchet up the rhetoric about this or that threat to "the family" or "the children" and then pitch for funds to fight the group that has been identified as causing the threat.

    OR, become more inclusive and ask for help reaching out to help others.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    May 17, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    @ Karen R: You cavalierly state: "I think it will be this way for religions too. If they want to continue to attract converts, at least here in the U.S. - or stop losing them - they're going to have to do what's best for their "business."

    This is what the Creator of the universe and the earth said to a living Prophet: "...What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven....."

    As for me and my family we will choose the way of the Lord.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    May 17, 2014 4:04 a.m.

    Only the DN editorial board and Karen Carpenter would sing out "it's only just begun" concerning the issue of burying the idea of marriage equality. The next song the DN will be singing is "It's my party and I'll cry if I want too, cry if I want to, you would cry to if it happened to you".

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    May 16, 2014 8:31 p.m.

    @ Bob K

    Really? While I will agree that more people have let go of their angst toward SSM I wouldn't say they have jumped on the SSM band wagon.

    You might have plenty of rallies and such out in your necks of the woods but I don't see much of any here on the east coast.

    I see people growing more apathetic towards the issue which isn't really a sign of support for either side.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 5:46 p.m.

    Blue Cougar, the five things that you mention as signs of the last days have nothing to do with being LBGT. LBGT people had no choice in their orientation. They truly were created in God's image just like you! These "signs" apply to all people including many "good members" of the predominate faith. We have all had experiences with so called "good people' that have participated in all five of your mentioned signs.

    I don't see that happening to someone just because they were born gay or want civil rights accorded by our Constitution. Every one of these scriptures was warning the whited sepulchers of today.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 2:03 p.m.

    Guess what, from the gay point of view, this battle has been with us since the beginning, so what else is new? People are so arrogant! Why would I feel like I have a right to deny somebody to get married? If I truly feel like somebody should have respect for me, shouldn't I give that respect back? Why would I have a need to make this kind of judgment and maybe I should think twice before assuming so much about God's will! How easy it is to make such big decisions concerning the lives of others! Who are people fooling? I an gay. You know what, I love the people around me including all the Mormons. All of my family is Mormon! Seriously, who are people kidding? I guess they can choose to believe any degrading thing that want to concerning me, but I am a decent and good person and so is my partner! Our lives together have been good! It has been good and very important to us! More power to you! All those people who truly feel a need to put us down, more power to you.

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    May 16, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    SoCalChris,

    You really think people "choose" to be gay? Why would someone choose to be discriminated against, ridiculed, beaten, denied rights? Personally I did not choose to be gay anymore than you choose to be straight. It's just a fact I eventually accepted - there is no proven method of changing that fact.

    The fight for SSM is about equality, not forcing you to accept it. There are over 1200 federal rights and protections than automatically come with marriage. I don't care whether you "approve" or not.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    May 15, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    How does maintaining the age-old definition of marriage deprive anyone of free agency? People are free to choose to be gay and live with and love the person they want.

    This is all about societal approval. Free agency means you are free to do what you want but it also means I am free to disapprove. There is a big difference between allowing the exercise of a freedom and approving of it.

    Marriage is a stamp of approval and society is under no obligation to say that all lifestyles are equal.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    May 15, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    @Furry1993: The only thing I would add is that the Heavenly Father's law seems to be specific to each denomination. There is no consensus, even among Christian denominations, as to what that law fully constitutes nor how to practice one's faith in compliance with it. Every denomination approaches the subjects of dogma, revelation, and discernment its own way and with its own results.

    And historically, some of those results have been violent. For religions which extol Peace, very few denominations have a great track record of practicing it.

    Let me just add, again, that the reason we have separation of Church and State ("the Establishment Clause") in this country is that, during our colonial and territorial days, we've had a violent history of religious strife and oppression, including imprisonment, exile, torture, and execution of minority religions by governing authorities. (cf. "Boston Martyrs")

    In matters of religious faith and practice, our government only need guarantee individual freedom. For everyone.

    Meanwhile, secular law will soon embrace marriage equality because no one can show a court how they themselves will be injured by it.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 15, 2014 4:48 a.m.

    @bandersen 11:09 p.m. May 13, 2014

    Second try. The first try didn't violate any of the posting regulations but DesNews didn't like it so they denied it.

    I don't see LDS Liberal advocating that homosexuality is a good thing. I see him fighting the same fight we all fought in the pre-mortal existence -- the right to have free agency to make our own decisions as we "wend" our way through mortality. I see him arguing for the right of each one of us to make our own decisions, right ones or wrong ones, but make them ourselves and not have someone dictate morality to us and force us to comply. Forced adherence to morality was the plan we defeated in the pre-mortal existence but, unfortunately, Lucifer keeps trying to reinstitute that failed plan time after time after time. It's fine to try to persuade; just don't try to compel using laws like Amendment 3 and the other laws struck down because they violate the Constitution.

    It's time to both advocate for free agency in civil law and, if you feel it necessary, seek to persuade people to live in acordance with Heavenly Father's law.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    May 15, 2014 1:54 a.m.

    "The key question in the debate over the definition of marriage is about who shall decide. Will it be the people, through democratic processes? Or will it be by a federal district court judge? The legal debate has only just begun."

    --- I am beginning to thing that DN editorials are written only to please the oldest, most conservative lds elders, with no consideration of how they drive away folks who are younger, or who may have more open minds.

    I notice that the 3 "top comments" ridicule the article and the DN.

    First, it is ironic and wrong to bring up "the people deciding", because the lds church and Utah would not exist, if the rest of American had voted on it 150 years ago.

    Second, mentioning only one judge is odd: Not only have many judges ruled, but the matter is going to be settled by the Supreme Court, not a single judge.

    Third, the legal debate has not just begun. All the decisions are going the way of equality, and public opinion is moving from mild acceptance to overwhelming approval, at a rate no one could have predicted.

  • GingerAle North East, OH
    May 14, 2014 8:39 p.m.

    @banderson:

    Apologies! Sometimes I am clear as mud. I was not in anyway trying to imply that you are a racist.

    If you read the comments of Dr. and Mrs. King above, and then read the comments of Gov. Wallace and Sen. Thurman – only replacing certain keywords. For example, in Gov. Wallace's comment replace segregation with something like traditional marriage. In Sen Thurmans comments, insert gays and lesbians.

    And then reread the remarks of Dr. and Mrs. King. Your mileage may vary, but to me to context and connection is clear.

    Again, I was not saying or implying anything derogative.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    May 14, 2014 8:34 p.m.

    Um, DN, the debate is nearly over. Hello?

  • annewandering oakley, idaho
    May 14, 2014 7:10 p.m.

    Open Minded Mormon: "1. Utah and S. Idaho would have to quaduruple their taxes to pay for their independant servies.

    2. A Society governed by God -- costing 5,000 Americans deaths, 75,000 wounded and $3 Trillion of debt -- fighting Al Queda was supposed to be all about.
    Who's side are you on?"

    I hardly think we would be fighting in the Middle East. The taxes you refer to would not exist in a theocracy. Anyway, it was a comment expressing my despair in our political system. We mortals dont seem to be very good at ruling ourselves on our own do we.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 14, 2014 4:26 p.m.

    @annewandering
    oakley, idaho

    At this point I quite honestly wish we had a place in the mountains to go to to live in a society governed by God. Utah and S. Idaho would make a nice little country.

    1:51 p.m. May 14, 2014

    =======

    1. Utah and S. Idaho would have to quaduruple their taxes to pay for their independant servies.

    2. A Society governed by God -- costing 5,000 Americans deaths, 75,000 wounded and $3 Trillion of debt -- fighting Al Queda was supposed to be all about.
    Who's side are you on?

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 14, 2014 4:13 p.m.

    Mtndewed: Wherein did you detect any ill will? The fact that elder Clayton said we have no ill will toward any one that defies God does not mean that I will support those who defy Him and spit upon his Commanments and his gospel! This is typical Political Correctness at its best! "Don't tell me that something is wrong, even if it is, because I have reached my conclusion and everyone must now cease from criticizing me!" Climate change, SSM, Social Justice, etc have all been codified and written in stone, never to be questioned by anyone ever again! And what part of education does this fall under? Seriously, are we heading back to the dark ages? I just like the truth and I am not afraid to have my views challenged and expect the same in return! Elder Clayton in expressing God's word was not condoning SSM in the least. he was expressing the Christian ethic to treat all people with respect! I have shown no disrespect. I have yet to receive an honest answer to my question!

    Ginger ale: George Wallace and Strom Thurmond were rascist! I am not!

  • annewandering oakley, idaho
    May 14, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    I have been a democrat for a long time. Concern for humanity has always been at the root of my thinking. Now I am 'unaffiliated'. When I was young the big thing was to attack marriage as old fashioned and pointless. Many people found no reason to argue with that assessment. After all if you take religion out of it then why is it all that important?
    After marriage became passe' to many but it still was around, the opponents of marriage vocally and publicly changed tactics and decided marriage should be available to anyone focusing on same sex marriage. How could anyone be against people being in love and showing that commitment with a marriage? Odd since they had just won the battle of public opinion showing how valueless marriage was.
    So now we come to today. Anyone can get married or will be able to but it is valueless. A strange dichotomy dont you think? At this point I quite honestly wish we had a place in the mountains to go to to live in a society governed by God. Utah and S. Idaho would make a nice little country.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    May 14, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    What do you mean by "deeply divisive?" Almost all of the Northeast states, 3/5 of our Pacific Ocean states (California, Hawaii, Washington) and a couple states in the middle have dropped their strictures against two people of the same gender marrying, and... what, exactly? Civil unrest? Blood in the streets? Churches boarded up?

    No. Nothing.

    Your church doesn't approve. My church does approve. Is your church entitled to official endorsement and mine isn't? No. Not at all.

    Government business is none of our church business, unless the government is stopping us from performing our rites in accordance with our beliefs. And, guess what? You're not the ones being discriminated against. No one is telling you that you have to conduct same-sex marriages. No, WE'RE the ones being discriminated against, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. WE'RE the ones being told that the State will not let us practice our religion.

    When it comes to "deeply divisive" issues in Church, that's not the government's concern. What is concern is following the Constitution and not "recognizing an establishment of religion," ie not enacting your religious prohibitions.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 14, 2014 10:23 a.m.

    Thanks MtDewed
    I remember the quote, but couldn’t remember who’d said it.

    There was also this: , the church "does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships," it posted on it’s website. Something else I have championed for over 10 years now – only to be treated like banderson did.

    As for grievous “sins”,
    I think trampling on the poor, sick, weak, elderly, and the needy – while worshipping idols of Babylon, gold, silver, fine apparel and Mammon -- is far more grievous a sin than SSM.
    It’s also the real reason why Sodom & Gomorrah was destroyed, the ancient Nephites were destroyed and us if we don’t change – SSM wasn’t even mentioned once.

  • MtnDewed Salt Lake City, UT
    May 14, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    Banderson,

    Perhaps you could explain the meaning of L. Whitney Clayton speach, a man you say you support as a Prophet, seer, and revelatory, wherein he said, "Latter-day Saints are free to disagree with their church on the issue (Gay Marriage) without facing any sanction. We love them and bear them no ill will."

    Why are you projecting such ill comments towards other members who disagree with you in these comments?

  • Bob K portland, OR
    May 14, 2014 2:32 a.m.

    "In our opinion, those who say that the manufacture of buggy whips is no longer needed are not listening to God"

    "In our opinion, those who say that women may wear skirts that show the ankle are wrong"

    "In our opinion, folks who approve of race mixing are wrong"

    etc

    In MY opinion, the DN is sinking its own ship by cleaving to a position that will soon be considered to be so wrong as to be evil.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    May 14, 2014 2:26 a.m.

    In addition to Idaho, federal or state judges in Oklahoma, Virginia, Michigan, Texas, Utah and Arkansas have recently found those state bans to be unconstitutional. Judges have also ordered Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.Note not one victory for our church held position,friends we all know which way the wind is blowing.

  • GingerAle North East, OH
    May 14, 2014 12:06 a.m.

    @bandersen:

    "History tells us what happens when a majority of people chose evil, rather than good!"

    Martin Luther King, Jr. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

    George Wallace: "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

    Martin Luther King, Jr.“I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.”

    Strom Thurmond: "There's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

    Correta Scott King: “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.”

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 13, 2014 11:25 p.m.

    Rocket Science - Thanks for the article. What an insight! That truly is the homosexual agenda play book.

    For those in denial, homosexuality is in fact about sex. It is not surprising that it is totally everywhere in public. All kinds of sex is everywhere in public.

    Propriety is what is hard to find these days.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 13, 2014 11:09 p.m.

    LDS Liberal: Perhaps you could explain the meaning of Elder Holland's talk, a man you say you support as a Prophet, seer, and revelatory, wherein he said, "We must forsake transgression and any hint of advocacy in others"? I see no hint of advocacy of SSM in you. Rather than hint, I see you tethered with an anchor the size of Manhattan! Don't you find it difficult to belong to a religion that teaches that Homosexuality is one of the most grevious of sins, but which you pronounce as equal to mother Teresa in its lofty nature? This is puzzling to say the least, but which I hope the Deseret News would allow a reply. I can understand those not of the Christian faith being confused, but for the life of me, I can not see how someone declaring themselves Christian, particularly Mormons, who will willingly advocate for others to do something that is not just considered sin, but deep sin, something that strikes at the very heart of God's Plan of salvation. Very puzzling!

  • Taylor Orem, UT
    May 13, 2014 10:04 p.m.

    A prophet weighed in on this subject in 1969, and his words still ring true:

    "There are certain old truths which will be truths as long as the world endures, and which no amount of progress can change. One of these is that the family (the organization consisting of father, mother, and children) is the foundation of all things in the Church; another, that sins against pure and healthy family life are those which, of all others, are sure in the end to be visited most heavily upon the nations in which they take place" ("Our Children--'The loveliest Flowers from God's Own Garden,'" Relief Society Magazine, Jan. 1969, 4), quoted in "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith," Chapter 4.

    I am not anxious to see the sins against pure and healthy family life visited on our nation or state, although I think we see it happening already. Why are so few standing up to protect what is most sacred?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 13, 2014 9:41 p.m.

    @ Mike Richards

    Are you trying to tell us that your personal feelings had nothing to do with your marriage choice? If I am correct about the reasons behind your marriage choice, then you did base it on love and feelings. Why are opposite-gender couples allowed to marry for love but same-sex couples are not?

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    May 13, 2014 9:16 p.m.

    For all those who happily jump on the SSM rights band wagon saying "well it is not for me but I can't deny someone else that right"; you need to read article The Overhauling of Straight America by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill in Guide Magazine, November 1987.

    Indifference on this subject is not acceptable. As soon as SSM becomes the law of the land there will be expanded efforts to indoctrinate our school children as is already happening in California and a few other states. We will be pressured to not just tolerate it or to accept it but to embrace it.

    You will recognize these same methods, marketing strategies, and techniques outlined over 25 years ago with what is happening even right here in the discussions of comments on this and ever other related article. If that is what you are all about it is your right to go for it but make no mistake the morals of this Nation will decline further.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 13, 2014 9:07 p.m.

    Nevada Cougar: I doubt there many that even understand your post! We the people isn't just a cute phrase! The people are the final arbiter of the laws, which is a great risk considering if 51 % of the population wanted SSM, but that is the risk of a Constitutional Republic. History tells us what happens when a majority of people chose evil, rather than good!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 13, 2014 8:55 p.m.

    Mike --

    1. I married for LOVE (a feeling), not for sex.
    2. You seem to think marriage and sex are one in the same.
    3. I know what the Proclamation on the Family says. I believe, and I live it.
    4. You are not my Bishop, you are not my God. They are the only one's I recognize who have the proper authority to judge me.
    5. America is not a Theocracy.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 13, 2014 7:58 p.m.

    In 1998, Coretta Scott King, wife of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr and a civil rights leader in her own right said, "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.”

    More recently, Judge Chris Piazza of Arkansas wrote, "In rejecting the state's claim that opposite-sex marriage promotes procreation: "Procreation is not a prerequisite in Arkansas for a marriage license. Opposite-sex couples may choose not to have children or they may be infertile, and certainly we are beyond trying to protect the gene pool. A marriage license is a civil document and is not, nor can it be, based upon any particular faith. Same-sex couples are a morally disliked minority and the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages is driven by animus rather than a rational basis. This violates the United States Constitution."

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2014 7:50 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    Actually, it's support for same-sex marriage that Deseret News posts are around 50/50 for. Not even close to all those 50% that are for it are having that sort of sex themselves though I suppose some straight couples (including those against same-sex marriage) use similar acts sometimes...

    @Blue AZ Cougar
    "What should happen is we should encourage people to live the commandments of God."

    But there's a difference between encouraging it and putting religious rules into law like many Islamic nations do.

    "Please read the Book of Mormon and tell me you haven't felt spiritually inspired, or that it hasn't changed your life in some way."

    Some Book of Mormon chapters are interesting and/or inspiring but I've never felt it was anything more than a work of fiction.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2014 7:36 p.m.

    An Idaho judge has struck down their ban, so I assume some of you are going to claim we have around 15/15 surely liberal activist judges since Windsor now?

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    May 13, 2014 7:28 p.m.

    A SS relationship simply does not fit the definition of marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. A husband is a man married to a woman, a wife is a woman married to a man. No man can be a wife and no woman can be a husband. No two men or no two women in a relationship can be husband and wife and cannot provide a mother AND a father to children. The States do have a vested interest in having successful families, the ideal family state being a husband and wife marriage. States should defend their marriage laws and promote that which encourages the ideal. Other relationships may be entered into by persons as they see fit but they are not marriage despite what congress enacts, judges rule, or the populace votes.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 13, 2014 7:01 p.m.

    If the right to decide marriage is left to the SSM crowd, then, of course, they will also support polygamy, polygyny, and other forms of marriage as well! Right! I knew I could count on the SSM crowd to support equality for all.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    May 13, 2014 6:30 p.m.

    Those who advocate SSM now want to label those of us who stand for marriage and what is really is with bigotry and vile animus. These professed rights to a SSM are newly claimed in contradiction to long held laws and definitions. No one has been trying to take away any rights. SSM advocates are inventing a new right and shouting down, discrediting, and even threatening any who advocate for the true definition of marriage.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    May 13, 2014 6:06 p.m.

    . . . and now, Idaho.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    May 13, 2014 5:37 p.m.

    @my_two_cents_worth
    What the Book of Mormon says is completely relevant. It was written specifically for our day. It's a historical and spiritual record of God's dealings with people who once lived on this very continent. It teaches us about the commandments of God and tells the story of a great nation that was ultimately destroyed when it rejected the prophets and their teachings. It teaches us the Plan of Salvation and the true purpose of this life. It teaches us about our divine potential. It stands as another witness, in harmony with the Bible, that Jesus is the resurrected Lord. How could it not be relevant for a society that faces the issues we face today? We are only a secular society because we don't have enough commitment or righteousness to live any higher law. We are only a secular society because there are people who teach the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, and not enough who are willing to stand boldly for what is right.

    Please read the Book of Mormon and tell me you haven't felt spiritually inspired, or that it hasn't changed your life in some way.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    May 13, 2014 4:31 p.m.

    @illuminated

    So you would have no problem then with my state refusing to recognize marriages between Mormons. Equating marriage equalization to drug use is pretty silly, BTW.

    @NevadaCougar

    Conservatives need to stop citing the constitution for continued inequality and protection of their perceived "special rights."

    @Blue AZ Cougar

    We are a secular nation of secular laws that promote equality under the law. What your Book of Mormon says is irrelevant.

    @Mike Richards

    The only one, thus far, to bring sex acts into the discussion and to indicate they "understand exactly what takes place" is you; no one else. Why is that? If your best argument against equality under the law is "feelings" I'd encourage you to stay out of the business of law.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 13, 2014 4:27 p.m.

    Mike Richards,

    You are aware that a great many opposite sex couples incorporate the same acts as same sex couples in their marriages?

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 13, 2014 4:25 p.m.

    Illuminated, kind of a silly example. It would be quite simple to ditch your marijuana before coming to Utah. Are you suggesting that the airman get a divorce to come to Utah and then remarry when he gets reassigned?

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 13, 2014 4:03 p.m.

    @Kindred:

    "It may seem inflammatory, but if you feel others should be forced to accept same-sex marriage against their will, I cannot see how you are any different than many fascists of the past."

    Are people being forced into same-sex marriages against their will? If that were true, it would be horrible. However, unless reports of that happening come to light, I'd have to say this is a stretch on your part.

    I have a feeling, however, that by "if you feel others should be forced to accept same-sex marriage against their will" you actually mean "if you think civil marriage should be available to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples".

    If that is the case, then it is highly inappropriate of you to throw around a word like "fascists."

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    May 13, 2014 3:48 p.m.

    @Darrel
    What should happen is we should encourage people to live the commandments of God. We should gain back the moral compass that once led this great nation, one that was used during its formation. But no, it's far easier to align our laws with the unrighteous ideologies of men. Far easier to put aside the word of God and do what makes us feel good. Far easier to be "tolerant" and shut our mouths about what is right and what is wrong. Far easier to confuse our youth with the false idea that there are no consequences for those actions, to teach them that SS behavior is normal and beautiful -- it is not.

    Matthew 19:4-6
    4) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
    5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
    6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 13, 2014 3:44 p.m.

    Re: LDS Liberal, Open Minded Mormon, etc. ad infinitum,

    You ignore "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" in your flippant posts about same-sex sex. You pretend that sex in same-sex intercourse is natural. It is not "natural". The Deseret News would never allow anyone to post specifics about same-sex sex, but most people understand exactly what takes place. Your continual personal attacks against those who believe in the sanctity of sexual relations contradicts your self-described appellations.

    Only the less than 3% of the population who practice same-sex sex claim that it is "right". 97% of the population tell us that that act is an unnatural use of the body. Even with those percentages of people who practice same-sex sex, the Deseret News posts about 50/50 instead of 3/97. Reading the posts would make the uninformed think that about 50% of all people engage in same-sex sex when the actual percentage is less that 3%.

    If laws are based on "feelings" instead of gender, everything in society will be overturned.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 13, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    @illuminated

    So what happens to that marriage in my hypothetical? What should happen? Punish the Airman for serving his country?

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    May 13, 2014 3:19 p.m.

    It is silly to think the states should decide for themselves on national and international issues. If that were to be allowed there would be all kinds of confusion: federal highways ending at state borders, national parks and other public assets closed to the national citizenry, etc. State rights must be subordinate to national rule.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    May 13, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    @no fit in SG
    No, that's not what I said -- don't put words in my mouth. Read my comment again.

    ----------------------

    Someone who is predisposed to SS attraction is under the same obligation to repent or change their life as someone who is pre-disposed to drinking, smoking, anger, etc. We are all imperfect children of God. Our goal should be to find out what the will of God is for us, then seek to fulfill the measure of our creation.

    Mosiah 3:19
    "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

  • NevadaCougar Panaca, NV
    May 13, 2014 3:05 p.m.

    I agree 100%. Progressives are flippant. They believe the SC will go their way on gay marriage so they dream up these "rights" that the SC should enforce. But when the Court votes against Bush v. Gore and against campaign contribution laws, the progressives complain about the SC going beyond their authority. The fact is that there is no such thing as ethereal rights that just exist. The US has been and is a democracy. Even the bill of rights was voted upon by representatives of the people. These unwritten, but allegedly inherent rights are not authorized by the people or the Constitution. Progressives need to stop citing the Constitution for gay marriage and other progressive ideas. These ideas on the progressive agenda are NEW and were never adopted into the Constitution. To permit the SC to adopt them anyway would do exactly what the editorial board suggests, place legislation into the hands of the judiciary. What if the SC were to say that gay marriage is inherently wrong and no state could allow marriage? Obviously, progressives wouldn't want the Court creating legislation then. The ends never justify the means.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    May 13, 2014 3:01 p.m.

    @Darrel

    "an Airmen in the Air Force. He is stationed in New Jersey, and happens to be legally married under New Jersey law to another man. He gets stationed in Utah; what happens to his marriage?"

    Nice try, but we already have hundreds of state laws that become invalid once you go to a different state. Someone carrying marijuana legally in Colorado can go to jail if caught carrying it in the state of Utah.

    If you're arguing that "equal protection" should make Gay Marriage legal for all 50 states, then you're also arguing that marijuana should be legal for all 50 states.

    The founders designed the Constitution with the idea in mind that there would be laws that were different based on the state or local communities. It would be up to the voters to decide these things. The 10th Amendment states that this is the case.

    And no, a state could not ban interracial marriage because race, like sex, is something you don't choose at birth. And whether or not you believe being "gay" is a choice, Gay MARRIAGE, is a choice...and it can and should be up to states to decide.

  • Kindred Mesa, AZ
    May 13, 2014 2:58 p.m.

    Another well reasoned view from Deseret News. This issue has no relation to interracial marriage and is not about civil rights. Some have been trying to relate it to oppressions of the past in an effort to give the movement for same-sex marriage a moral legitimacy. In reality, it has none. The issue truly is about the right of the people to decide what is best for the country. No entity should force this on the people of the United States. We can decide these things for ourselves. It may seem inflammatory, but if you feel others should be forced to accept same-sex marriage against their will, I cannot see how you are any different than many fascists of the past.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    May 13, 2014 2:53 p.m.

    1 Voice.

    The more I read your posts--and Mike Richards posts--the more I am beginning to think the issue is not about protecting "traditional" marriage but about protecting "special' rights: your right to decide who you will marry while not extending that same right to those you feel undeserving. Marriage equality is the law of the land in 17 states and life continues normally. The sun still rises in the East and sets in the West, millions of folks still get to their preferred places of worship, straights are not abandoning their partners having suddenly become "gay," and, contrary to your predictions, there has not been a rush at county offices for marriage licenses for brothers wanting to marry sisters, uncles wanting to marry nieces, guys wanting to marry the entire cul-de-sac, or people wanting to marry their pet cats.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2014 2:51 p.m.

    Great article DN!. Thank you for providing accurate and balanced information to the readers of this great newspaper.

    While I wish the courts would rule in favor of the will of the people, I doubt that will ultimately be the case. We live in a nation where immoral behavior is now viewed as acceptable. Alas, we also live in a nation where the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets are coming to fruition. One need not look far to see that the nation is beginning to realize the consequences for it's choices. We will yet come to rue the day we forgot the basic principles our once great nation was built upon.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 13, 2014 2:50 p.m.

    @1 Voice

    Marriage is not a constitutional right. There are good reasons a state has the authority to define marriage.

    ============

    If I may disagree, this is very much, and should be a matter decided at a National Level.

    I married my wife in the State of Utah. If I move to any one of the other 49 States, my marriage will be recognized by that State, with no action whatsoever on my part. I do not even have to tell a county clerk I am married.

    Marriage has become such a bedrock, and fundamental idea in our society that having 50 different definitions just does not work out.

    For example, take an Airmen in the Air Force. He is stationed in New Jersey, and happens to be legally married under New Jersey law to another man. He gets stationed in Utah; what happens to his marriage? What if his partner gets in an accident while in Utah? Utah cannot recognize this marriage, and therefore while in the hospital he gets no visitation rights. Is that fair? What about taxation? Inheritance?

    And finally, can I vote on your marriage? Will you allow me to decide whether or not your marriage should be legally valid?

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 13, 2014 2:40 p.m.

    @1 Voice:

    Stating "Because it's best for society" is not an answer. In fact it is an example of the logical fallacy known as 'begging the question.'

    *Is* excluding same-sex couples from the legal protections that opposite-sex couples enjoy actually "best for society"? Explain *how* is it good for society to marginalize LGBT citizens like that.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 13, 2014 2:29 p.m.

    Blue AZ Cougar
    Chandler, AZ
    You don't have to read many of these comments to see just how far our society has distanced itself from the commandments of God. I'll probably be labeled a "bigot" for saying that, but it's true.

    1) This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
    2) For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
    3) Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
    4) Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
    5) Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
    (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

    9:54 a.m. May 13, 2014

    [I read that, but can not see the parallel to homosexual behavior,
    but I do read it and see the excesses of WallStreet, Babylon and Mammon.]

    ==========

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    1:40 p.m. May 13, 2014

    Mike,
    By your comment, you still don't know the difference between a Homosexual and a Transexual, because you confuse the 2 in almost every post.

  • SLCPorter SLC, UT
    May 13, 2014 2:29 p.m.

    This is Constitutional Law 101. Yes, the courts can and should override democratic process when voters pass laws that oppress minority populations. That's what the constitution is for.

    The Deseret News loves the constitution when promoting the protection of religious organizations and religious liberty, but when the constitution is invoked by the courts to protect the rights of LGBTs to marry you hate it? You cant have it both ways folks.

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    May 13, 2014 2:21 p.m.

    If SS couples (or polygamists or bigamists) want to live together, great. Its just not a marriage.

    Yes, spousal benefits only applies to married people. People that form other relationships must enter into contractual arrangement outlining the restrictions of that relationship. This would any type of co-habitation arrangement one might have. If a grandparent raises a child they must first get legal custody of the child just like anyone else that is not their biological parent.

    States should have the right to define marriage as the union of one man and one women. Traditional marriage should be supported as that is what is best for society.

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    May 13, 2014 2:21 p.m.

    Marriage is not a constitutional right. There are good reasons a state has the authority to define marriage.

    Its important that states have the right to define marriage as the union of one man and one women. The traditional definition of marriage is what is best for society (That is why we have the law in the first place). States also have the right and obligation to exclude from the definition of marriage any relationship that is not in the best interest of society. This includes SS, polygamous, bigamous, or polyamorous relationships. Not because we are being hateful or homophobic, but because that is what is best for society.
    If a state were forced to include SS couple in the definition of marriage (based on a presumed constitutional right to marry) then states cannot regulate marriage in any way. States must also include any union between consenting adults (polygamous, bigamous, polyamorous, etc.) It would only be fair base on ones perceived right to be married and define marriage as they wish.

    States should decide, not the federal government, not individual with a particular agenda.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    May 13, 2014 1:54 p.m.

    marxist

    “There could be a division between states having SSM and those which do not.”

    A perceptive observation.

    Both sides in their all-out commitment, one against the other, may well be surprised at just how fragile are the ties that bind us as a nation. Winning at the expense of others is always an illusion.

  • Manzanita Las Vegas, NV
    May 13, 2014 1:46 p.m.

    Allow me to summarize this and everything else the Des News has ever published on this subject:

    1. When a court decides a case that is consistent with a conservative political philosophy, the Constitution is honored and the government is functioning properly. When a court decides a case that is inconsistent with that philosophy, then it's judicial activism and offends notions of democracy. (Ex: The Prop 8 decision was judicial activism, but the opinion last week on legislative prayers was not).

    2. Similarly, when a court reaches a conclusion that supports a conservative political philosophy, then a court has properly exercised its jurisdictional powers. But, when a court decides a case that is inconsistent with that philosophy, then it's judicial overreach or federalism trying to tell us locals how to best run our lives. (Ex: The LDS Church supported an amendment to the federal constitution defining traditional marriage, but now complains that federal judges are defining marriage the other way).

    I appreciate that reasonable adults can have differing opinions on same-sex marriage, but let's not pretend that any of the arguments advanced by this editorial board have been consistent for anything other than their hypocrisy.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 13, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    Yes - it is the end of the world,

    You could either agree with Muslim Terrorist that America IS the great Satan,
    or
    leave the world by pulling a Jonestown People's Temple or Heaven's Gate self-rapture stunt.

    I for 1 believe the world - as screwed up as it is - is still a pretty great place,
    that is far from being perfect,
    but like our Founding Fathers believed, is not a finished stone, but is an ever lasting, ever perfecting, ever progressing Country.

    Onto Eternal perfection.
    I believe it.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 13, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    "Feelings" are the only parameter that fits. A doctor would tell a homosexual male that he is male. A doctor would tell a homosexual female that she is female. A doctor could explain to either the male or to the female the proper use of their sex organ. Those who disregard their anatomy and the observations of their doctor rely on their personal feelings to decide their gender. They rely on their personal feelings about the "proper usage" of their sex organ. They use FEELINGS, not God given physical attributes, to define their gender.

    Utah's Supreme Law, the Utah Constitution, defines marriage. The Supreme Court left that definition to the States. The 14th Amendment does not use FEELINGS as a basis for inequality.

    Judge Shelby used the dissenting argument from the Supreme Court to overrule the Utah Constitution. There is no basis for him to use FEELINGS as a determination of inequality. He legislated from the bench. He wrote new law.

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    May 13, 2014 1:32 p.m.

    Good article. Kennedy is the man who will decide whether to preserve a state's right to define marriage. Go traditional marriage!

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    May 13, 2014 1:19 p.m.

    DN quotes SCOTUS Windsor opinion: "...the tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage..."

    DN calls this a "central plank in the..decision that the federal government could not...undercut the state of New York's definition of marriage."

    That is not accurate.

    The full SCOTUS quote: "DOMA's unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages."

    DN flips the meaning of the full sentence. Yes, in some sense, it is a "central plank" but in the opposite way DN implies to readers.

    The omitted phrase "unusual deviation" is crucial, as SCOTUS calls this "strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class [of SSM married couples]." This "purpose and effect of disapproval" is a key reason why SCOTUS found DOMA unconstitutional.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 13, 2014 1:18 p.m.

    @ haggie

    "Are gay people claiming their orientation is natural while biology disagrees?"

    Are you claiming that you've never seen information that ACCURATELY states our current knowledge; that is, that biology-based theories point to genetic factors and/or the early uterine environment as determinative of sexual orientation?

    In other words, a heterosexual's orientation is no more "natural" than a homosexual's.

    Sneaky Jimmy is right. The religion-based anti-SSM position starts from a false premise. The only thing wrong with LGBTs is how some people view them and choose to treat them on the basis of this viewpoint. Finally, FINALLY, a majority recognizes that this is wrong and we're moving steadily towards legal recognition of LGBTs' equal standing.

    Yes, this is a sign of the End of Days: The end of the days of children being kicked out of their homes for being gay; of state-sanctioned discrimination; of state-sanctioned second-class citizenship; of loneliness, desperation, and hopelessness caused by fear and ignorance. The end of days indeed. Bring it on.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    May 13, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    "The DN says the issue should be decided by the states rather than have unelected judges simply dictate the definition of marriage. Of course the left sees that as a position that deserves to be mocked."

    Our government was established with an executive branch, a legislative branch and a judicial branch. The legislative branch makes the laws we follow and funds the programs we sponsor ("we" of course means the people who elect those folks.) The executive branch carries out those laws in the day-to-day operation of the government. Certainly there are and have been conflicts between the executive and legislative branches of the government. That;'s where the judicial branch comes in. These "unelected" judges are there to interpret the laws that the legislative body passes in accordance with what the Constitution says, without political influence. Certainly there have been different opinions within the judicial branch.

    Our current method of choosing Supreme Court Justices has become more and more political resulting in a consistently split court. The only way to make it more political would be to have "elected judges." Is that what you're suggesting?

  • hymn to the silent Holladay, UT
    May 13, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    It's now Federal v States...and Religion v Government. For Abraham Lincoln, the slavery issue was second to keeping the union together, even though he believed slavery abhorrent. SSM should be a federal decision, ensuring tax rights and visitation rights for any two people who live together and are committed to each other. But the Feds should also protect the right of religions to practice how they please so long as the worship doesn't break the laws of the land. The answer is to get churches out of the marriage business. Let them perform holy matrimonies for those who qualify (every church has a set of standards a couple must meet in order to be "married"). Couples can be civilly married at the courthouse. And if they choose a higher standard within their church, they can do so, and should be guaranteed that right...whether the majority of citizens agree with the teachings of that church or not. The fastest growing religion in America right now is an undying belief in the Federal Government. You Federalists make your choice and allow me to keep mine and we will all be better off. God and Obama bless us all.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    May 13, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    Blue AZ Cougar,

    Wow, Because of LGBT and SSM, you say that God is calling an end to all of us, destroying our civilization, and the world?
    What about all the other "stuff" that has happened, and is going on at the present time?
    You certainly have missed a great deal of famous historical events for thousands and thousands of years. Have you forgotten about that vital historical history we have obtained?
    Do you reside in a very small isolated area, away from history books, and today's utterly amazing electronic world?
    Appears that many religions seem to play tricks on people, leaving out so much of the truth.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    May 13, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    "I know you are against SSM, but you really don't get this Constitution thing, do you?"

    "This Constitution thing" never said a word about SSM, at least not until judges with incredibly high opinions of themselves recently began deciding it's been there all along.

    Amazingly, the Supreme Court itself didn't understand SSM was in the Constitution in 1971 when it decided against Baker v Nelson. And yes, that was AFTER Loving v Virginia.

    The DN says the issue should be decided by the states rather than have unelected judges simply dictate the definition of marriage. Of course the left sees that as a position that deserves to be mocked.

  • haggie Visalia, CA
    May 13, 2014 12:06 p.m.

    The States role in marriages is what? From my libertarian perspective, why does the state care? Utah and Oklahoma have both provided a reason what the state interest is. They say it is for the purpose of supporting a naturally occurring family relationship.

    The next question should be, why are homosexuals so interested in redefining marriage? Is it because they want to pretend that when they play house that everybody has to accept their unnatural relationship? Is it because they want to undermine the fabric of a nuclear family and change it to fit their definition and in absolution live a lie? Why compare it to interracial marriage? People's color is a naturally occurring genetic outcome. Are gay people claiming their orientation is natural while biology disagrees?

    Marriage is God's institution and man can not re-define it. Man may change it for now, and it will be harmful there is no doubt about that. But we can't force people to live as God has asked.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    May 13, 2014 11:58 a.m.

    Justice Scalia in his dissent in U. S. v Windsor criticized Justice Kennedy saying:

    "The opinion starts with seven full pages about the traditional power of States to define domestic relations—initially fooling many readers, I am sure, into thinking that this is a federalism opinion."

    Apparently the Deseret News Editorial Board was among those who were fooled, because Scalia goes on to say:

    "It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here."

    Scalia goes on to say:

    "In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.”

    Sorry but its Game - Set - Match.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 13, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    @ truth in all its forms

    I would like to know why those countries that legalized same sex marriage are still doing just fine. Some of these societies have had a legal form of same sex marriage for over a decade. These societies haven't weakened, they are doing just as well or better. I keep hearing that if America allows same sex marriage it will mean the end of our civilization and yet it hasn't in any of these other societies. So when America legalizes same sex marriage (and it will) what is going to happen? I would like a list of things in detail I can expect to happen to America once this becomes law.

  • MtnDewed Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    Ajax: "Rather than all or nothing, might we have a more Solomonesque decision?"

    --------------

    If you are speaking about letting gays have "civil unions," that boat sailed 10 years ago. Gays begged the legislature and actually put advertisements on TV trying to stop the second part of Amendment 3 that states that no legal recognition of any kind for gay couples. Remember?

    It passed by 66% of the population. Now, the only recourse is to take it to the courts and have the whole thing overturned. That is what is happening.

    The choice Utah made was all for heterosexuals, nothing for gays. Now they will pay the consequences for that choice. There will be no do-over. Utah made their decision and will have to live with the outcome of it.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 13, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    OK, I'll try again....

    1. Courts rule on the Constitutionality of a law -- NOT wheather it is popular.

    2. If the majority still wants the change - they can, but they must have their Elected Representatives Amend the Constitution.

    I'm not so much offended by the Deseret News Editorials bias,
    as I am by their lack of understanding how our Constitutional form of Government works.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2014 11:41 a.m.

    If the Supreme Court leaves the SSM decision to the sates, there could be some interesting (and serious) consequences. There could be a division between states having SSM and those which do not. The United States could break apart, with the interior west joining Texas and the Bible Belt south to form one nation, and with the coasts and some of the midwest forming another. Impossible? No, it's quite possible. Yugoslavia blew apart. Scotland may leave the UK. Ukraine may break in half. And remember the United States broke apart on slavery.

    SSM is a potent issue which could well bring about the balkanization of the United States.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    May 13, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    Mike Richards said, "No judge can legislate from the bench." So, then, the SCOTUS decision in the Greece, NY, City Counsel prayer case was in error, yes?

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    May 13, 2014 11:33 a.m.

    This is the most important issue of our time! It is crucial to the foundation of our society that we protect the traditional family. A society can only be as strong as our weakest link. Right now Obama is trying to weaken the crucial unit of our society known as the traditional family. God has made it clear that the family is important as outlined in the Proclamation of the Family. Our society owes it to our future generations to uphold the God ordained traditional family!

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    May 13, 2014 11:28 a.m.

    Human society is a composite of legally constituted unions of all types. None, however, is more fundamental to a society’s well-being than heterosexual marriage. That is not to say that other marriage arrangements don’t contribute (they do and substantially so) or should in any way be discredited or discouraged. Clearly, as amply demonstrated, homosexuality has a legitimate role in a healthy society. Persecution of any sort is only divisive and harmful to all, perpetrator and victim alike. And yes there are countless heterosexual couples who are infertile or post-menopausal or perhaps with questionable parenting skills, but still to pretend that exclusively homosexual marriages are in the end the equal of heterosexual marriages in promoting human welfare is folly.

    Rather than all or nothing, might we have a more Solomonesque decision?

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 13, 2014 11:25 a.m.

    @Mike Richards

    Any man can marry any woman who will have him.

    ==========

    Are you suggesting that we take love out of the picture? Should a man marry a woman just so he can enjoy the legal benefits of marriage you and I obtain because we have married someone we love?

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    May 13, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    @Ajax - Marriage is a civilc "business/property"contract in the eyes of the Government, nothing more.

  • Weber State Graduate Clearfield, UT
    May 13, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    As long as "government" remains in the business of marriage (sanctioning by virtue of a marriage license) it's pretty clear that the Equal Protection Clause makes it unconstitutional for government to discriminate against a specific class of people...period.

    At the same time, as government migrates into the arena of officially sanctioning "gay" marriage, there is no legal basis for government to then discriminate against polyandry, polygyny, group marriage, inter-family marriage etc. One group simply can't make a "moral" or "legal" argument for government to sanction their marriage narrative and then argue government can't officially endorse another.

    The solution would be for government to get out of the business of marriage and sanction legal contracts such as civil unions...leave the business of "marriage" to religion. Those who want to be "married" based upon their specific marriage narrative can then find a religion who will marry them.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2014 11:00 a.m.

    @Vanceone
    "Gay is good, gay is great, let's hate those who procreate"

    LGBT people are around 2-5% of the population; most who support same-sex marriage are straight, and many of them procreate. This idea that they hate straight people is absurd.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    May 13, 2014 10:52 a.m.

    Who should decide? Every individual and that right is protected by our constituion. Utah should hope the courts decide, otherwise they'll be one of only a few states making SSM illegal and we'll lose millions of dollars in our economy from boycotts and business investments. One day the majority in this state will realize how prejudiced their view was to deny others their personal freedom and individual rights.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 13, 2014 10:49 a.m.

    @ Mike Richards, Judge Shelby most definitely did NOT disregard the majority opinion of the Supreme Court. I would love to see the substantiation of that assertion. But even if he did, if the Supreme Court disagrees, it has the power to overrule him. Your whole "feelings" argument is in the realm of nonsense. It seems to be a mockery of the principles of equality under the law. You may mock those principles when not convenient to your beliefs, but a more consistent argument would be to uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the courts, as provided for in that document. Reading your arguments over time, your reliance on the Constitution is really about supporting your personal beliefs, nothing more.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 13, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    "Will it be the people, through democratic processes? Or will it be a federal district court judge asserting a constitutional right to a practice that remains deeply divisive within our nation?"

    The courts, as it is in their brief to decide on the constitutionality of laws.

    That was easy.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 13, 2014 10:29 a.m.

    The "equality" argument has been taken to a ridiculous length. Any man can marry any woman who will have him. There is no discrimination about race, national origin or religion. ANY man can marry ANY woman.

    Some demand that equal rights include how they feel about themselves. Some say that their physical body is different than what they feel it should be. They claim inequality based on their feelings.

    If feelings are the basis for equality, then watch out. I feel that I should be paid the same as the CTO of a company that I consult with. I feel that I should drive a much better car than I have. I feel that I should live in a much larger house than I have.

    If feelings are the basic for equality, then grades must be abolished. All people must be paid the same amount. Everyone must live in the same type and size of house. Everyone must drive the same model car. That is the only way that feelings can be equalized.

    No judge can legislate from the bench. Judge Shelby disregarded the majority opinion of the Supreme Court.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    May 13, 2014 10:25 a.m.

    Oh, and as for those who are all upset that the Deseret News is opposed to Same Sex Marriage--I know it is a shock, but perhaps the Deseret News is the only Media organization that isn't all in on the gay stuff. In the New America, I'm pretty sure that you gay rights people will have them investigated and shut down, but for now, Kudos to the DesNews, for bucking the "Gay is good, gay is great, let's hate those who procreate" that the rest of the media does.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    May 13, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    Why is it that the bulk of the comments indicate their dissatisfaction with the opinions of the DNews, yet never seem to hesitate to comment (even if they don't read the editorial)about their dissatisfaction with the DNews editorial board and its connection with the Mormons?

    You are free to read the editorials of the publications of others - which are most likely more abundant than the ones expressed by the DNews.

    Is this another way for you to "shout-down" opinions that differ from yours? Enlightened or intolerant?

  • Curtis Hight Anchorage, AK
    May 13, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    I read a Reuters article by Kevin Gray on February 7 entitled "Florida judge approves birth certificate listing three parents." I am interested in reading responses to it within the context of this discussion.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    Beyond the legalisms, the foundation of this debate is this: where does homosexuality come from? Is it willful disobedience or mental disease, or is it a natural state? Science has generally concluded that homosexuality is a natural state, a minority state, but a natural one.

    We had a similar debate over why some people are black. The religious explanation was that everybody started out white, and that blackness was imposed as a punishment for some deeds. The scientific explanation is that we all started out black, out of Africa so to speak, and that some of us are white because of natural selection.

    The war goes on, but I'm pretty sure where its going to end. In the meantime people suffer.

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 13, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    If God has an issue with same-sex marriage I, for one, am more than happy to leave the consequences up to Her.

    The reality is, Homo sapiens sapiens can safely ignore any and all pronouncements on the opinions of the gods on the matter of marriage.

    What we know for sure is that, for an "ideal gold standard" of marriage and family and child-rearing -- a claim that predicts HUGE measurable differences in advantages and childhood outcomes -- there is pretty much only the failed study by Regnerus. Where there should be HUGE advantages and benefits everywhere easily documented, there is virtually nothing.

    Comparisons to the fatherless, single-parent, underclass family are bankrupt -- the families and children of same-sex couples, and their childhood outcomes, look nothing at all like them. In fact, they can't be reliably distinguished from the so-called "gold standard."

    The ultimate "legality" of same-sex marriage is not in question. The only question is how much time, money, angst and self-righteous moralizing is going to be wasted getting there.

    If there's no negative secular consequence it's not even a moral issue. A religious issue, perhaps, but not a moral issue.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    May 13, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    You don't have to read many of these comments to see just how far our society has distanced itself from the commandments of God. I'll probably be labeled a "bigot" for saying that, but it's true.

    1) This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
    2) For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
    3) Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
    4) Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
    5) Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
    (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

    If that doesn't describe our day, I don't know what does. Our nation has lost its moral compass. We are more concerned with equality than righteousness. When you understand where you came from, why you're here, and where you're going, it's easy to understand why SS marriage is inconsistent with God's intended purposes. People claim that God made us equal as if to persuade us that SS marriage should be accepted, yet they take His commandments and prophets and openly trample on them.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 13, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    It has never been our right to vote on whether or not other people have full rights. All are created equal. We hold these truths to be self -evident, etc.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    May 13, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    In the year 2014 the Desert News editorial department is operating from a completely false premise: Gay people are sinners, being Gay is a sin and therefore deserve no happiness until they renounce homosexuality and become heterosexual. This is akin to "God will strike you down if you mix with someone other than your own race" How can any supposedly educated individual believe that society is served by denying people their rights? It boggles the mind.

  • Madden Herriman, UT
    May 13, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    No matter what, this has to end with the legal rights afforded to married couples being granted to LGBT couples who enter a contract. It might not end up being called "marriage," or perhaps religious weddings will be re-termed as "holy matrimony," but to me the compromise solution seems obvious. We need to allow access to legal rights to all couples regardless of gay/straight orientation, yet we need to allow churches to restrict their actions based on behaviors, which may include LGBT behavior being considered a sin. You can't force a church to allow the marriage of gay couples, but at the same time, you can't allow LGBT community to miss out on legal rights or endure discrimination in public. It seems that the city of Salt Lake figured this out early, if only the rest of the country would catch on.

    Maybe that is just too much common sense though.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    May 13, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    So let me get this straight - the DNews is against SSM? That comes as quite a shock.

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 13, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    Once same-sex marriage is the reality everywhere, Utah, like all other states, will have complete and total "states' rights" freedom to write whatever marriage laws they chose -- as long as they comport with fundamental liberty rights, equal protection and due process.

    America and the world has huge problems. Same-sex marriage is not one of them. It's a shame we've wasted so much time and so much energy and money on a non issue.

    -- For gay couples and their children and families and friends, of course, it is a big issue. And rightfully so. To the degree that marriage and family is the foundation of society, gay marriage and family will only strengthen it.

    We should all be getting ready to move on to real problems.

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    May 13, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    Utah, Oklahoma and other states with same sex marriage bans may win the battle but end up losing the war. Even if SCOTUS rules in favor of states having the right to define marriage and thus ban same sex marriage in the end these states will give up the bans on their own because of econmic threats, boycotts, loss of convention business and coporations refusing to move and bring jobs to the states with the bans. If SCOTUS is smart they would allow the issue to be decided state by state knowing that in the end the states will adopt same sex marriage all on their own without SCOTUS mandating a federal definition. It is the same with the interracial marriage case. All the states would have eventually allowed interracial marriage through the democratic process. Utah did four years before SCOTUS ruled the ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional.

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    "I didn't even read the article but I'm guessing it's the same nonsense as we have read hundreds of times in past Dnews articles."

    I feel the same way about the comments by same sex marriage supporters on the same articles.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    May 13, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    @ShaunMcC:

    I'm pretty clear on where you stand and I appreciate you conveying the information free of any animosity.

    I also appreciate your passing along the information from your lawyer friends, but I can't help but notice that what my husband and I could have expected to pay for forming the LLC (and related matters) would be quite a bit more than the $61.00 we paid for our civil marriage license. Fortunately for us, we didn't have to go the route your lawyer friends suggest. Here in California, the equality train has already left the station, and there's no turning back.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 13, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    Debating the "Legality"... is one thing. But please don't pretend that God must accept whatever we decide in our "legality" debate.

    The laws of men are one thing, and they are changeable by men, and they can be structured to justify whatever men want to make "acceptable"... the our laws are not God's eternal laws of heaven. That's a different thing. They are not set by men. And they don't bend to accept what our modern society or this debate says should be acceptable.

    IMO... Some of our desires and our laws are drifting away from what God intended. That's OK. Because our laws are not HIS laws. They are different from God's law. And that's the way it's supposed to be. And I'm OK with that. I realize they are totally different things.

    Debate this all you want... but don't pretend that forces God to change the standards.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 13, 2014 8:30 a.m.

    @Hutterite

    Please supply the exact article and section of the Constitution that is being "trampled".

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 13, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    The voice of the people cannot trump equality and human rights. Compare: the Mormon Church is particpating in a worldwide movement for religious freedom, in order to be able to preach in countries where the democratically elected legislation has voted to restrict or forbid any Christian missionary work. People in those countries are convinced that foreign religions threaten their moral and cultural standards. Do we then agree with "the will of the people"? No, we believe the democratic process has its limits when it takes away the freedom to be and to manifest who you are. It's fundamental in the Declaration of Human Rights.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    May 13, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    I fully support the rights of LGBT couples to legally join in unions of their choice. But to shoehorn everyone into a one-size-fits-all marriage arrangement, regardless of obvious differences, only leads to a legal and moral morass detrimental to all. Any party could and will take advantage of ill-suited legalities to constantly “harass” another.

  • ShaunMcC La Verkin, UT
    May 13, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    @VV, My lawyer friends say that forming an LLC with specific provisions for those issues will provide every legal remedy you seek with the possible exception of some tax laws which I agree should be addressed. My Constitutional conviction is that marriage should not be a part of the equation when it comes to the Federal government - that marriage should be between two people or between two people and their God. The fact that the government IS involved is what has led us down this path.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    "The key question in the debate over the definition of marriage is about who shall decide. Will it be the people, through democratic processes? Or will it be a federal district court judge asserting a constitutional right to a practice that remains deeply divisive within our nation?" Alabama - early 1960's.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 13, 2014 8:19 a.m.

    In other words, you're only willing to accept one outcome and you're willing to keep fighting and trample to constitution to get it.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 13, 2014 8:10 a.m.

    It would appear that the editorial writer fails to grasp that under our Federal Constitution, the role of the judiciary includes reviewing the laws passed by the Congress and the various States to determine whether they are in conflict with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Without that review and court decisions, segregation would still be the law of the land in states where it used to exist, miscegenation would be banned by law, police would be allowed to beat confessions out of suspects, and people could be jailed indefinitely without charges being filed. It's part of the idea of checks and balances to prevent, among other things, a tyranny of the majority that would easily oppress those in the minority. One would think that Mormons in particular would be sufficiently cognizant of their own history to see how badly that can turn out.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    May 13, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    @ShaunMcC

    My husband and I are legally and lawfully married in the eyes of the state of California and in the eyes of the U.S. government. That is what I care about, legal equality -- that my government not discriminate against me. Contrary to what you might think, though, I have no objection if your conscience does not allow you to recognize my relationship. That is your business.

    About your first point, I've yet to discover a way to privately contract for the spousal privilege.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 13, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    @Roland Kayser

    Don't forget Utah, one only has to read the talks of religious leaders in Utah to be reminded that they too were very much against interracial marriage. And I'm not talking about the 1800's. I mean the talks given in the 50's and 60's.

    In all I think this entire editorial is pointless. What should guide the decision is not who will decide but what will decide. Whether it's by the electorate or the supreme court the constitution should decide this issue. In my opinion that means same sex marriage will be legal in America soon; and this will actually prove very positive for our country.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 13, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    I know you are against SSM, but you really don't get this Constitution thing, do you? Or is it just when it is convenient and in agreement with your views? This editorial is stunning in its hypocrisy.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    May 13, 2014 7:53 a.m.

    DN wrote: "The key question in the debate over the definition of marriage is about who shall decide. Will it be the people, through democratic processes?"

    So what have been the most recent decisions by an electorate on this issue? I would point out to the DN that decisions made in the last couple of years are more indicative of where the U.S. stands now, rather than votes taken a decade or more ago.

    Here's another set of key questions: Why have the arguments made by those opposed to Marriage Equality been losing ground at such a rapid pace? -- both in courts and in the sphere of public opinion?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    May 13, 2014 7:52 a.m.

    A recent survey found the Roberts court has seen a serious decline in support for the Supreme Court by a sizable majority of citizens. Even though they're unelected and serve for life, this has to be on the mind of the Supremes as they try to sift through cases.

    They don't operate in a vacuum.

    The opinions of Thomas and Scalia - who recently badly misread even his own earlier opinion - can be easily predicted before any case is actually formulated, but the rest of the court has to be aware of how they'll be judged by history.

    Overturning the striking record of lower courts on SSM decisions will yield respect by a dwindling group of Americans, while the younger generations would look at it as just another really bad decision by a court that seems intent on eroding the respect for the institution.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 13, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    So what if a group of voters in a certain State, even a huge 80 to 20 margin decided "Freedom of Religion" really meant "any group of Christianity"?

    Should that be legal? Or should a judge throw that out?

    What if a State decided that to vote one must own property? What if a State decided that it would only educate those kids it deemed had a shot of succeeding in life? Does a State, or the People of a State really hold all power? Or are they subject to limitations.

    The fact a specific right is not enumerated in the Constitution does not make it any less a Right (in fact that was one of the largest arguments against a Bill of Rights, that their enumeration would be construed as a limitation.)

    If you are enjoying certain legal privileges because of a Status conferred upon you by a government, that same privilege and Status must be made available equally to all. After all, aren't all men created equal?

  • ShaunMcC La Verkin, UT
    May 13, 2014 7:48 a.m.

    Wow, is everyone afraid to stand up for traditional marriage? I have always believed that we have created through legal contracts and needed to create a way for LGBT people to have equal rights when it comes to survivorship, hospital visits, tax policies, etc. That is what equal rights are about. I believe that people of all races and religions should have equal rights too. That doesn't mean that we must call all the people of all religions Catholics or all people of all colors Asians. If people in gay relationships want to call themselves married, I don't care. If they want the government to compel ME to call them married, that is an over-reach of government and it is a change of historic definition that I believe is wrong AND incorrect. I am sure I will now be labelled a bigot and a hater though I am not either. I have family members that are gay that I love and a number of gays that I work with and enjoy friendships with and a number that visit regularly in my home. I still have to stand for what I believe.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    May 13, 2014 7:47 a.m.

    Can democracy abrogate civil rights? Is marriage such a basic civil right? Public sentiment is mercurial.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2014 7:16 a.m.

    "The key question in the debate over the definition of marriage is about who shall decide."
    -----------------

    Exactly!

  • YoungPuppy west Jordan, UT
    May 13, 2014 7:15 a.m.

    I am going to have to disagree with the statement in the article.

    "It is almost certain that one of the pending appellate court decisions regarding the right of a state to define marriage will again return to the Supreme Court. And four of the current nine justices are almost certain to uphold laws."

    Not necessarily. That will only happen if there is a disagreement among the different federal and appellate Judges. Last I counted the score was 42 decisions supporting Marriage equality to 0 that were ruled in favor of discrimination... oh I'm sorry "traditional marriage". If there is no disagreement then the Supreme Court will not take up the matter. They will just deffer to the lower courts rulings and Marriage Equality then becomes law. I hope that there is a decisive ruling by the Supreme court that will be sweeping across all states. But eventually, one by one all of these unconstitutionally voter approved laws will fall.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    May 13, 2014 7:15 a.m.

    "...The key question in the debate over the definition of marriage is about who shall decide. Will it be the people, through democratic processes? Or will it be a federal district court judge asserting a constitutional right to a practice that remains deeply divisive within our nation?...".

    Why stop there?

    The DN editorial is dismissive about a federal district court judge.

    Yet the DN editorial gives deference to another unelected lawyer's single vote.

    In both cases, the problem is unelected lawyers making decisions that affect all of us.

    It appears that the age old axiom of where one stands on an issue depends upon whose ox is being gored continues to be the golden rule.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 13, 2014 6:42 a.m.

    I think it's time I stop reading the Deseret News. It's not healthy to be constantly reminded about how opposed the editorial board is to me having basic rights that would lead to real happiness in this life. While there are so many people sincerely trying to reach out and understand what it means to be homosexual in this community, you continue to publish articles that undermine those attempts. Don't you realize that your words continue to compel people to keep us as strangers in our own churches, neighborhoods, and homes.

    I am saddened by this fight you continue to wage against a group of people who have been marginalized for far too long. Can't you please remember that these are people--children of God--who deserve a break from the rhetoric that divides us?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 13, 2014 6:35 a.m.

    I didn't even read the article but I'm guessing it's the same nonsense as we have read hundreds of times in past Dnews articles.

    People should decide, not judges. States rights. Bla bla. Children are raised better if the parents are biological. Bla bla. Maybe some completely bogus discredited study will be cited. Blast Obama or Harry Reid.

    And that's a wrap!

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 13, 2014 6:13 a.m.

    So the DN is counting on SCOTUS saying, "Sure, you're denying a group their equal rights with no rational basis, but it really isn't our place to interfere. You all do what you want. We'll be over here clipping out the portions of the U.S. Constitution that are a bit problematic for you."

    I agree that it would be best for each state to decide on its own to rescind these laws. It certainly would be better for business. And perhaps it will be business concerns that give politicians the cover they need to do the right thing. Like Governor Brewer in AZ: She was able to veto the ill-advised "religious freedom" law by saying "I will always do what's best for my state."

    I think it will be this way for religions too. If they want to continue to attract converts, at least here in the U.S. - or stop losing them - they're going to have to do what's best for their "business."

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 13, 2014 12:30 a.m.

    Had the right to an interracial marriage been left to voters, it would still be illegal in many southern states.